Comments on: Glasgow shows key differences, Cipfa fractionally improves

By: librariesmatter

librariesmatter — Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:25:50 +0000

Nobody should be fooled by the ‘Interactive Report’. It is not a replacement for the Library Profiles. The report has some useful functionality but is set up so that it is now virtually impossible to gather the core data on a Library Authority or the national picture.

The government [DCMS] obviously believes it is best if the public have no hard data on Council Library Services. CIPFA will of course concur because they want to increase the value of the information that they can charge Councils for. Councils and Libraries Connected will concur because Council Leaders and their management teams never want data released that isn’t directly controlled by them.

The bodies mentioned above are treating the public with contempt. To not be able to publish basic public libraries data is a bad failure by the Library Sector.

There should at least be parliamentary questions to DCMS Ministers on this.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:49:44 +0000

Library leadership needs to go from taking an angsty line on CIPFA data (“well, we’d like library services to do better, but let’s make the most of what we’ve got”) to a firm position. You should publish as open data or not at all.

It’s a waste of public money, doesn’t serve the public, and should be stopped immediately. CIPFA rely on inertia on this. I was in a meeting years ago that had library heads of service (still in post) saying “let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater” about CIPFA, and they’ve done absolutely nothing to change. And clearly don’t want to. Noone’s going to get anywhere by asking CIPFA nicely if they’ll publish a little sooner, or make some interactive charts.

The public are better served by using Freedom of Information legislation. Terrible that in the public library service it should be the default that information has to be forced out of services, kicking and screaming, but that’s the situation.

By: librariesmatter

librariesmatter — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:24:11 +0000

I comment as a library user.

I can’t agree with you that the just published CIPFA online public library reporting for 2019/20 is an improvement.

CIPFA’s public libraries reporting has deteriorated substantially this year.

For the previous eight years the DCMS funded Public Library Profiles for each English Library Authority. The profiles for 2019/20 have not been published. No explanation for their non-appearance has been given as far as I know.

The ‘Interactive Report’ you mention isn’t new, this is the third year of its publication. It is a useful supplement to the published library profiles.

The profiles weren’t brilliant but they did at least provide the public with some basic data for their library service.

Now there is nothing for the public.

How can the public get behind public libraries if no solid data is ever published?